HERITAGEPAC E-MAIL ALERT  6/10
POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY...ET AL...

 A friend visited Gettysburg last weekend, and happened upon some
members
of the Gettysburg Discussion Group (who normally meet "on-line"), who had
gathered together at the Battlefield.
 

 Here is his report:

 I was present when Supt. John Latschar appeared for a brief Q&A
session.
Unfortunately, I didn't manage to get a question in. (I would've asked "How
do you answer critics, such as Mr. Hansen, who say that the management plan
approval process was a sham, since the deck was stacked from the beginning?")
 He bragged about installing sewer lines and fire supression systems in
various park buildings. He also said that there are plans for a Civil War
Museum here. I wasn't sure whether he meant a brand new institution or
merely the planned visitor center. In any case, he said the plans are for a
"social history" approach, oriented less toward "who shot whom" and more
toward "why they were shooting."
 

 Oh, great.  More of this politically correct stuff.
 Battlefields were established by Congress to commemorate *battles*,
not to
"explain history" in the context of today's values.
 This is a very unfortunate trend throughout the Park Service as far as
Civil War battlefields are concerned.
 Here's a good subject for a letter to your Senators (c/o U.S. Senate,
Washington DC 20510) and your U.S. Representative (House of
Representatives, Washington DC 20515: write them and urge them to direct
the National Park Service to stick to *military* history at the Civil War
battlefields, focusing on the *battle* which was fought there and which is
commemorated by the battlefield.
 And remember, please keep your letters brief and to the point,
without a
lot of ranting and raving and preaching and name-calling.
 Take the Joe Friday approach--just the facts, ma'am, with a leavening
of
opinion and emotion--but not much.
 
 

 Another message from a long-time supporter:
> A suggestion: When you suggest that we write to Congressman So-And-So,
Senator >Such-And-Such, Governor Whoever, and so on, please provide their
e-mail, telephone, >and fax numbers as well as their postal mailinng
addresses--if you have them.  More >work for you, true, but more
convenience for us potential letter-writers, and the >easier it is to
write, the more likely someone will do so.
 And here's what I told him:  Personal letters, I've been told by
Congressional staffers, get about 50 times more attention than phone calls,
FAXes, e-mails, etc.
 The very best way to get the attention of a Member of Congress is to
send
him a *letter.*  More trouble for you folks, but much more effective for
the cause we all support.
 
 

 Here's another story from the Gettysburg Times, a day or two ago (I
been
busy... haven't had time to do the *important* stuff in my life...):

   Candidate zeroes in on G'burg park fight
     by Robert Holt

 >U.S. Rep. Ron Klink, the latest congressional leader to question
plans for a
>$39.28 million Gettysburg battlefield visitor center, is expected to meet
>with local officials this week.
 >"It is my intention to be down here on Friday to meet with leaders
in the
>Gettysburg area," Klink said during an interview in Adams County Monday.
 >"I've already had staff people up here. We're very concerned about
this," he
>said, adding that he will also tour National Park Service facilities.
 >The Democratic legislator from the New Castle-Beaver Falls area, now
>preparing to run for Republican U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's seat next year,
>said he also plans another town visit to talk with area citizens.
 >Klink said his interest in the visitor center, part of a $74.78
million
>battlefield management plan under congressional scrutiny, is the result of
>calls from constituents.
 >The legislator said he has questions about the project still pending
final
>approval this month. Klink is also interested in an apparent campaign
>connection between Santorum, the most vocal congressional advocate of the
>new visitor center, and York developer Robert Kinsley, who has already spent
>$2.75 million for the proposed project site.
 >Kinsley is among Adams-York Republican leaders and business people
listed as
>the "host committee" for a $100-per-plate fund-raising dinner in November to
>benefit Santorum's re-election campaign. Along with their endorsement on
>invitations, host committee members sell tickets to the dinner at Hanover
>Country Club.
 >Kinsley spokeswoman Barbara Sardella said she could not confirm that
Kinsley
>is a member of the host committee. She said Kinsley was traveling out of the
>country and not available for comment.
 >Klink said it has the appearance of a "quid pro quo" (one thing in
return
>for another) situation with Santorum.
 >"It should be asked. And he should be made to answer," the Democratic
>legislator said.
 >Klink noted that Republican Adams-York U.S. Rep. William Goodling is
not
>advocating the project, even though the battlefield is in his district.
 >"It goes right to campaign financing. And the question needs to be
asked,"
>Klink said.
 >"If there's not a connection, then he (Santorum) needs to explain
publicly
>why thereıs not a connection between his position on this issue and ­ again
>it's my understanding and Iım coming here to find out about it ­ it goes
>against the will of the voters and the constituency in the community," Klink
>said.
 >Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham declined to say whether it was
fair to
>use "quid pro quo" to describe Kinsley being on the host committee.
 >"I'm not going to comment and try put words in Mister Kinsley's
mouth as to
>his motives for being on the host committee. That is his own prerogative,"
>Traynham said.
 >He said any Adams-York area residents are welcome to serve on the
committee.
 >He acknowledged Santorum is the most vocal supporter of the visitor
center
>project.
 >"The reason why is simply because he firmly believes in Gettysburg.
He
>realizes and understands the huge significance and the historical value not
>only in Pennsylvania, but across the nation," he said.
 >He said Santorum has supported battlefield preservation efforts since
>becoming a senator in 1995.
 >"The senator will continue to be a friend of Gettysburg for as long
as he is
>in the Senate," he said.
 >"And I think it is kind of hypocritical that the congressman is out
>gallivanting about Pennsylvania when he should be focusing on representing
>the constituents of his district," Traynham said.
 >He questioned whether Klink can fairly criticize Santorum on the
issue,
>since the Democrat accepts campaign donations from labor lobby groups and
>other political action committees.
 >Klink said he will not ignore the Gettysburg battlefield issue simply
>because it is outside his district, given that it is a national facility and
>he is actively engaged in a campaign for Senate.
 >"I'm running in this race to stop him from doing any further harm. I
view
>him as doing harm," Klink said.
 >"I donıt want to see problems that have been created because we
haven't
>taken him on now," he said.
 >He noted special interest contributions to Santorum's campaign
coffers
>include more than $105,000 from the gun lobby in his first Senate race.
 >He said Public Campaign, a campaign finance reform group, gave
Santorum its
>"Golden Leash" award for accepting $91,000 from health management political
>action committees and executives since introducing the Medical Savings
>Account bill in 1991 and being a sponsor 11 other MSA bills.
 >"It's the same thing with the farmers being sold out," Klink said.
 "He's (Santorum) on the agriculture committee, yet every position he
has
>taken has been against farmers," he said.
 >"He criticized food processors like Hershey Foods, Mars Candy, for
demanding
>large quantities of  commodities from farmers yet seeking legislative action
>that hurts the growers, and Santorum has supported those food processors.
 >"If you've got a senator whose S in senator should be crossed with
the
>insignia of dollar signs, and so should the Santorum be dollar signs," he
>said.
 >"The question is are most of these actions the result of the need to
raise
>campaign dollars? I'm not saying that it is, but I'm asking the question
>that it needs to be answered," he said.
 >Traynham said campaign funding is not the motivation behind
Santorum's
>legislative initiatives.
 >"I'm not going to sit here and go tit-for-tat with Congressman Klink
over
>what gun money, and so forth and so on," the aide said.
 >"The senator is going to focus on the issues that are important to
>Pennsylvania. For example, getting a million dollars additional funding per
>year for Gettysburg, as well as continuing to fight for medical savings
>accounts," Traynham said.
 >Creation of medical savings accounts has assured access to medical
care for
>300,000 people who might not have received that care otherwise, he said.
 >Santorum advocates legislation that is in the best interest of his
>constituents, Traynham said.
 >"Not because itıs part of some political fix-me-up. Thatıs not how
the
>senator works. The senator for the most part is a man of principle, he
>stands up for exactly what he believes in and heıs not afraid to say that,"
>he said.  [FOR THE *MOST* PART?????  JLR]

 Drop Sen. Santorum a note (c/o U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510) and
tell
him that if he is really for battlefield preservation, then he should
oppose commercial development inside the boundaries of the battlefield.
 And drop Rep. Klink a note (c/o House of Representatives, Washington
DC
20515) and thank him for his efforts in behalf of Gettysburg Battlefield.
Ask him to contact Rep. James V. Hansen, chairman of the House Subcommittee
on National Parks, and let Rep. Hansen know of his support for Hansen's
efforts in behalf of Gettysburg Battlefield.
 
 

 BTW, speaking of the Gettysburg Times, the NPS at Gettysburg NMP has
blacklisted Bob Holt, and won't send him information any more, because
"he's not fair."  Poor babies!
 So much for open dialogue and discussion.  Hey, it's a wonder they
haven't
cut ME off...
 
 

 Finally, here are some messages from the aforementioned Gettysburg
Discussion Group bulletin board:
>
>Esteemed member Maria Brady <winsgirl@hotmail.com> contributes:
 >When I first started going to the battlefield, I never went to the
VC.  All
>I wanted was to wander around the fields, and maybe stop in to buy a book
>(oh, what a credit card debt I had ;)). Silly me, I thought that was how
>most folks visited Gettysburg. I also thought that I was probably the least
>knowledgeable person to come here, and consequently avoided contacted the
>Rangers so that I wouldn't demonstrate my ignorance. Once I began
>volunteering at the VC, however, I realized how incorrect most of my
>assumptions had been.
 >True, many visitors stop here because they know a Civil War battle
was
>fought at Gettysburg.  But even those visitors need assistance in
>understanding the battle itself.  It's one thing to know the names of
>Devil's Den and the Angle, and quite another to place them in their
>geographic and historic contexts. These visitors will come whether there is
>a new VC or not. But the majority of visitors who use the VC and CC
>facilities are not in this group.  These folks are the ones who come up to
>the desk and ask "I know something important happened here, cause it's a
>National Park, but what was it?" I have lost track of the number of visitors
>who have approached me to ask "Why am I here?"  They honestly don't know.
 >And as funny as we may think these questions are (and some of them
are so
>humorous as to be hysterical), they are also very sad.  There is a distinct
>problem with the way in which history is taught at all levels of our
>educational system (but that's another soapbox for me to climb on), and it
>is the everyday Joe who suffers from that problem.  I can't fault the
>visitors for what they don't know, and the fact that they come to Gettysburg
>indicates a willingness to learn.  The very best thing about working at this
>Park is the wide variety and high numbers of people I get to contact on a
>daily basis in order to help them understand not just this battle, but the
>Civil War, its causes and effects, and why all of that is still important
>and meaningful in the 1990s.  But it's very difficult to provide that help
>when the air conditioning isn't working and it's more humid inside the VC
>than outside; when the exhibits are laid out in a building that was added to
>14 times and are in no logical order or progression; when you have so many
>people in the lobby of either building that you cannot be heard over the
>background noise and the visitors can't turn around without running into
>someone else; when its 95 degrees outside and the visitor needs, more than
>anything else, a cold drink, and he/she will not be able to concentrate on
>anything you tell them until they get one.
 >These casual visitors are very much influenced by the level of
service
>provided as well as the level of knowledge.  If they don't like the service,
>they won't stick around for the knowledge.  And before folks jump in and say
>"that's their problem", it isn't.  As historians, whether amateur or
>professional, it's our problem to correct or at least mitigate.  If we
>aren't willing to make an effort to reach these people, and to help them
>understand, than their ignorance is our responsibility.  A new VC, with all
>facilities in one handicapped accessible building, that provides adequate
>restroom space as well as expanded exhibit and classroom space, and that
>provides food services (which is the number one request of visitors at this
>Park!), will help draw these casual visitors to Gettysburg, and encourage
>them to stay for longer periods of time.
 >That, to me, is a worthwhile goal.
>Maria
>
>
>
>Bob Huddleston wrote:
 >Dr. Latscher speech of a couple of years ago made that very point:
the
>current primary visitor is a white middle-aged male. And, unless
*something* is done
>to encourage a wider variety ("diversity" is the buzz word!) of visitors the
>NPS will be even less successful in convincing Congress to appropriate
>dollars.  Failure of the museum to place GB in context will do nothing to
>attract the rest of the tourists. Placing it in context will alienate
those who
>disagree with the interpretation chosen.
 >I wonder, though: Surely even the most casual, uninformed,
first-time
>visitor makes the decision to stop in Gettysburg not based upon on whether
there is
>or is not a good museum/visitor center there, but rather because he/she is
>aware that a great, momentous battle took place there? If that is the case
now,
>will it not continue to be the case even if a superb visitor center is built?
 >Shouldn't it always be the case? Mind you, I'm not against the new
VC
>proposal, I just don't quite understand how its presence will by itself
increase
>visitation to any great degree, no matter what its "context." Unless of
>course this new visitors' center is heavily promoted as a major must-see
attraction
>in its own right, which I don't think is quite what any of us want.
 

 Of course, I've been banned from the Gburg Discussion Group--they
won't
accept me as a member...  So much for the free and open exchange of
divergent viewpoints, and respect for freedom of speech...
 

 Write this weekend if you can, about focusing on *battlefield*
interpretation, and preserving *battlefields.*

 And thanks to those of you who have written to express support...
 
 

Jerry L. Russell
Civil War Round Table Associates
HERITAGEPAC
We Who Study Must Also Strive To Save!